"these atrocities were not unfortunate excesses ... but the predictable consequences of the ideology that divided the world into “friends” and less-than-human “enemies.” The ideology was the repository of the true and the good, the key to the welfare of humanity. Its enemies had to be exterminated without mercy because they stood in the way. As the ideologues saw it, the future of mankind was a high enough stake to justify any deed that served their purpose."

This is why Stalin is adjudged to be better than Hitler, why Communism cannot be held to same account as Nazism. The intentions were "good".

This is old video from Sunday evening’s rioting in Paris. Comparatively, the “yutes” are much less problematic than they were during the riots of ’05. They may be keeping their powder dry or they may sense a fundamental change in the management, i.e. they are intimidated by the new Maréchal de France.

"The magic rod of fanaticism is preserved in the very adyta of human nature; and needs only the re-exciting warmth of a master hand to bud forth afresh and produce the old fruits. The horror of the peasants' war in Germany, and the direful effects of the Anabaptists' tnets, (which differed only from those of Jacobinism by the substitution of theological for philisophical jargon), struck all Europe for a time with affright. Yet little more than a century was sufficient to obliterate all effective memory of these events. The same principles with similar though less dreadful consequences were again at work from the imprisonment of the first Charles to the restoration of his son. The fanatic maxim of extirpating fanaticism by persecution produced a civil war. The war ended in the victory of the insurgents; but the temper survived, and Milton had abundant grounds for asserting, that 'Presbyter was but OLD PRIEST writ large'. One good result, thank heaven! of this zealotry was the re-establishment of the church. And now it might have been hoped, that the mischievous spirit would have been bound for a season, 'and a seal set upon him, that he might deceive the nation no more.' But no! The ball of persecution was taken up with undiminished vigor by the persecuted. The same fanatic principle that, under the solemn oath and covenant had turned cathedrals into stables, destroyed the rarest trophies of art and ancestral piety, and hunted the brightest ornaments of learning and religion into holes and corners, now marched under the episcopal banners, and, having first crowded the prisons of England, emptied its whole vial of wrath on the miserable Covenanters of Scotland. A merciful providence at length constrained both parties to join against a common enemy. A wise government followed; and the established church bacame, and now is , not only the brightest example, but our best and only sure bulwark, of toleration! the true and indispensable bank against a new inundation of persecuting zeal--ESTO PERPETUA!"

___“One wants to say that people ought not hold beliefs from which monstrous actions follow. And this is just what is right to say in response to any effort to excuse Robespierre. If his ideology led him to mass murder, he should not have held it.”

___“People do have a choice as to whether they torture or murder. Decent people will question their ideology if they see that it leads to inflicting horrors. And if they do not question it and commit atrocities, then they are justly held responsible not for what they believe but for what they have done.”

___”He is, therefore, responsible for the mass murder he caused. And the same is true of countless Communists, Nazis, Maoists, and terrorists who chose their ideology in preference to readily available alternatives of which they could not be ignorant.”

___”For they are convinced that reason and morality are on their side and that their enemies are irrational and immoral simply because they are enemies.Negotiation with such people can succeed only if we have overwhelming force on our side and have shown ourselves unsqueamish about using it.”

Apparently some self-styled "anarchists" are involved in these riots. I always wonder why anarchists get upset when socialists lose. Well, I suppose the answer is obvious: they're deeply confused individuals who need little provocation to break something. But calling oneself an anarchist sounds so much more sophisticated, subtle, and philosophical compared to more appropriate terms such as "thug" or "hooligan."

Sarkozy can do little by himself to change France. If anything, it was because France had changed that we have Sarkozy. Or perhaps more accurately, Sarkozy arrived when France realized that it had changed.

Not all of the changes were for the better. There were social divisions, a diminished standing in the world economy; a vestigial status as a great power. The question is whether Sarkozy or France see some of the changes as opportunities within which to exercise France's unique abilities, given that all nations are unique. It is normally adversity that rekindles greatness, if any spark is left.

But all that will take decades. In the short run Sarkozy is less an agent of change than a bellweather of it. The French know somethingmust be done, though they hardly know how to do it. I don't Sarkozy or any man for that matter, can change the ingrained ways of France. But he is a signal that France itself may want to change. One thing is for sure. It won't be smooth and perhaps it won't be pretty.

In modern times you could go back to the Spanish Civil War. The Left tried to overthrow the government in 1934 but failed. The Right tried in 1936, and then won the civil war three years later.

The Left usually doesn't win once constitutional government fails. They are good at undermining it, but once the chips are down the Right takes over. This happened in Germany, Spain, France (Vichy), and Chile. That's the record in Western countries, anyway.

The Left's chief target is Liberals. It isn't the reactionary or fascist Right. It's the people in the middle who support constitutions, parliaments and elections. The Left is quite good at defeating Liberals. The problem is that once the Liberals are out of the picture, it's the Right who wins.

That's a very perceptive observation and may go a long way to describing why theCommunist enterprise ended the way it did. Even within the Bolshevik system the radical edge was always gnawing at the rules which protected them, always creating a murderous dyanmic.

And maybe that's because the longing for the Worker's Paradise consists primarily in th elonging. The actually nuts and bolts of swabbing the floors and cooking the spaghetti -- all the tedium of building a society rather than rebelling, is of so little interest to them. They live for the barricades. Little wonder that they erect them until there are no paving stones left.

Interesting that no one has commented on Wretchard's initial post. Who was it that rejected the legitimacy of Salvador Allende? Why the right in the United States of course. Now is democracy an "absolute" value that the right sometimes makes reference to or is moral relevancy at play here? Is there any moral equivalence between the case of the weak in France demonstrating their displeasure at Sarkozy’s election by throwing stones and the case of the powerful Nixon Administration’s show of displeasure at Allende’s election by orchestrating a bloody coup and installing a neo-fascist dictator in his place?

And what about the GIA? They were part of a group that won the first round of legislative elections held in December 1991 in Algeria and as a result the second round was canceled. In response they started a bloody civil war. What would the right in America do if the Democrats were in power and they canceled an upcoming presidential election just because the Republicans swept the mid-term election prior to it. Would violence be the answer?

By 'Right' I mean the old Right- the people who think democracy and elections are a bad idea, the old elite of nobility, landowners and the Church. The US doesn't have that kind of Right. The right here is actually classical liberals. They are only 'right' in relation to the modern left.

Allende destroyed liberal Chile. He didn't replace it with anything, and when the coup came there wasn't anyone there to defend the constitution that he'd successfully undermined. He pushed the liberals into the arms of the military. He didn't even put up a fight. It has a lot parallels to what happened in Spain, except Pinochet avoided a civil war.

The same thing happened in Uruguay. The Tupameros caused the previously liberal country to give the military control. End result- right- wing dictatorship.

Same thing with Germany. Communists undermine Weimar, get the Nazis. France, 1940 same thing again- the Left had convinced the country that it wasn't worth fighting the Germans. Then the old Right took over in Vichy.

A good case can be made that the Left is simply an enabler for fascists and Conservatives (the old school kind). Fortunately, Liberals are pretty good at getting rid of the Right. In a lot of countries you get a circle of Right-Liberal-Left, repeating.

What we are seeing in Europe is the same dynamic. Left politics are not sustainable- financially or demographically. Either the liberals manage to put things together again, or we go back to the historical cycle of the 20th century.

Because the program of the Left is self-evidently true, and because the wisdom of the people is beyond reproach, a loss at the ballot box proves failure of process. A flawed process must be remedied by revolution to reaffirm the wisdom of the people and the truth of the program.

Shorter John Lynch: the Left is evil because they win elections and force the right to overthrow them in violent coups. And the Left is also evil when they throw stones in pathetic protest of a Right victory. In short, any action taken by the Right is good; any action taken by the Left is bad. Is this not a case of situational ethics and moral relevancy all combined into one? It’s not the action that we must judge but the actor.

Wow, absolute truth right-wing style is soooo very easy. No wonder the Islamists love it and use it too.

Buddy,

You don’t seem to be denying the culpability of the Nixon Administration, only that if in fact they had been innocent they would have been accused anyway. Charlie Manson said the same thing after his trial. Doesn’t really change the fact that he and his people drew pictures on the wall with the blood of Sharon Tate’s unborn baby and it doesn’t change the fact that democracy was crushed in Chile for mere mercantilist reasons.

But seriously, John is right -- had there been a desire on the part of Chileans to be governed by the Kremlin (remember the Cold War wasn't all that cold), then what chance would the counter-revolution have had?

Fair enough Buddy, the Manson stuff was a bit hyperbolic but who was it that said this about Chile:

I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

So what is the principle. What if those protesters in France think that Sarkozy is going to give France over to the Zionists. Zionism is afterall to the Jihadi value system what Communism was to the Right wing value system. Does that make violence justified?

So is the absolute truth that we hear so much about from your side that it is OK to destroy democracy if you have a really really doublisous good reason -- and a few soft drink company execs breathing down your neck for some action?

Or is it all just subjective? It's not the doing but the doer that counts?

Chilean Socialist presidential candidate Salvador Allende was elected by a narrow plurality in 1970, causing serious concern in Washington due to his openly Marxist and pro-Cuban politics. The Nixon administration authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to instigate a military coup that would prevent Allende's inauguration and presumably call new elections, but the plan was not successful.[22] The extent of Kissinger's involvement in or support of these plans is unknown.[23]

U.S.–Chilean relations remained frosty during Salvador Allende's tenure; following the complete nationalization of the partially U.S.-owned copper mines and the Chilean subsidiary of the U.S.-based ITT, as well as other Chilean businesses, the U.S. implemented partial economic sanctions, claiming that the Chilean government had greatly undervalued fair compensation for the nationalization by subtracting what it deemed "excess profits". The CIA provided funding for the mass anti-government strikes in 1972 and 1973; during this period, Kissinger made several controversial statements regarding Chile's government, stating that "the issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves" and "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." These remarks sparked outrage among many commentators, who considered them patronizing and disparaging of Chile's sovereignty. In September 1973, Allende was either assassinated or committed suicide during a military coup launched by Army Commander-in-Chief Augusto Pinochet, who became President.[24]

Kevin, it's rich beyond belief how selectively pious the international left is on the meaning of 'democracy' --what with so much of the planet's political history over the last hundred years being the story of its own deliberate subversion of proper governments (usually creating, as John Lynch says, a right-wing reaction).

If the left doesn't like reaction, it should quit with the subversion.

Ongoing enterprises, and the people that they feed, will after all try to protect themselves from theft by thugs claiming the mantle of "the people".

Are you by any chance keeping up with what's happening to "the people" in Venezuela?

Sure, the Venezuelan poor have had a raw deal--but with a gun-barrel thugocracy in permanent power, what now are their chances?

Only to shoot, steal, or be born into the power structure, a la Cuba.

Is this an improvement over the free-market middle-class meritocracy that had been growing under the market power of this ongoing global trade-based prosperity and growth boom?

"‘This event proves that really we're not such a conservative society anymore. We're freeing ourselves of taboos,’ said Fabiola Herrera, a 30-year-old university professor who volunteered to strip, along with her boyfriend.”

re: The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

Results___Google: 87,400___Yahoo : 49,400

Of the several hundred searched, NONE give attribution to the alleged quote. Moreover, although Kissinger’s Jewish genes make him suspect to the “minds” of some conspiracy theorists, he is not dumb as a post – which would be the case had he made such a public pronouncement.

There is a vast literature open to those looking for legitimate arguments against the American involvement in Chile. Christopher Hitchens, for instance, has had much to say on this score.

To this quote, apropos is Twain, “I have been through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.” ;-)

Is this an improvement over the free-market middle-class meritocracy that had been growing under the market power of this ongoing global trade-based prosperity and growth boom?

Honest answer, please.

Buddy,

Simply put, Social Democracy is by far the only proven system of consistent wealth creation and poverty eradication. Look at any list of the top twenty or thirty wealthiest countries and most will be solid examples of social democratic systems. Even the US back in the fifties and sixties was heavily influenced by social democratic ideas, just look at the California public education system and is still reaping the benefits.

The recent decline of the US is linked to rejection of Social Democracy among US elites. Actually let me clarify that, US elites embrace socialism for themselves, they impose market discipline on the rest of the population.

Now that South American voters are finally getting a chance to have their voices heard, they are voting for Social Democracy in droves. So many Venezuelans are now finally getting health care for the first time and most economic statistics are on the rise. The last thing they want is to go back to meekly grovelling to the whims of dictator representing the interests of the wealthy landowners.

Sweden and Denmark were recently named the most technologically advanced nations in the world (the US was 7th); they are also the most social democratic societies on earth.

Historically, I've always thought the modern French Republic was sort of an oxymoron. The French Republic really existed, in the modern sense, during the period of the Third and Fourth Republics (parlimentary governments unable to accomplish anything that took a sustained effort). That system worked fine, as long as there was a foreign threat everybody was unified about, (the condition disappeared after WW I) or no radical domestic change of course needed. The modern, Gaullist, Fifth Republic is really a monarchy, dressed up as a Republic.

Looking from the outside, I think the governments that suited the French the best were the 1830's monarchy of Louis Philippe, (the 1848 revolution was, in my view, a giant mistake), and the late Empire of Napoleon III (losing the Franco-Prussian war was bad news). The Fifth Republic, with the ability of the President to go over the National Assembly's head and appeal to the people via a plebicite or a referendum, reminds me of the latter regime.

Getting back to Wretchard's point about the increasing unwillingness of losers to accept the legitimacy of winners: I think that is a function, first, of modern communications, that create virtual communities of like-minded thinkers and actors. We can all choose the news we care to hear, by self-selecting our media: which over time convinces us that our view of reality is the right one.

Secondly, I think the modern era of communications allied with the hard left infection in academia has better enabled Marxist views on the legitimacy (or lack thereof), of non-Marxist views and parties to poison modern democratic practices.

Finally, as others have pointed out, Al Gore was indeed a terrible example. Worse, he was lionized for being such.

Kevin, I scanned all six pages of that turgid pro-Allende boilerplate, and did not locate the quote in question. Could you please direct me to the page number, at least?

And re this discussion, you've moved the goalposts--true social democracy is of course a step up from the old Oligharchies--which if you notice are severly atrophied, thanks in large part to political and economic market forces set in motion by Ronald Reagan.

So you're defending social democracy against military dictatorship, which is fine if it was still the 70s, but today the conflict is between representative government and Soviet-style Marxism.

I'm sure there are statistics being generated that make Hugo look good--Fidel after all is his teacher, and Cuba has ridden far on its medical care and literacy programs.

Great--we get terrified and desperate boat people who can read and are up to date on their innoculations.

Mr. Fagen, used the alleged Kissinger quotation in his Foreign Affairs piece, without a hint to its origin. He just wrote it - no doubt believing in its authenticity.

What is the quote's provenance? Some writers and bloggers say it was given by Kissinger "to reporters", presumably during a press conference. That being the case, one would expect to be able to retrieve it from the archives of the NYT or the LA Times, for instance. Hmm...

Others claim the alleged quote was spoken during Congressional testimony. The Congressional Record would, then, contain the record of such testimony. Hmm...

Oh, there is no shortage of usage of the alleged quote; there is just no evidence of its having actually been uttered by Henry Kissinger. This is another of those George Washington "cherry tree" moments, apparently.

One of the marvelous perks of being a journalist is never having to deal with nasty peer review.

For example, under scrutiny of "experts", one cannot say, "Dr. Ridley C. Tumor said, 'Eat three kittens and...'" and then blithely move on. Oh, no. To quote, one must provide chapter and verse, in context.

Oh, blogging seems to enable this same sense of poetic license, as you may have noticed. Nothing is sacred, especially truth, if it does not advance the agenda.

The quote is in the first paragraph of page three although it is not in the exact same form as in the Wiki quote.

The actual quote is: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."

I am still looking for the source. It seems that in the Christopher Hitchen's dvd about a trial for Kissinger he has the video of Kissenger actually saying the quote but I have not found it on You Yube though, so this is not for sure.

Wretchard wrote, “If anything, it was because France had changed that we have Sarkozy. Or perhaps more accurately, Sarkozy arrived when France realized that it had changed.”

This does have to be the case, doesn’t it? But this change did not happen overnight. How is it possible that John Q. Public (USA) hadn’t a clue of this profound change of perspective until the announcement of the poll results yesterday? Has the American media yet bothered to report that France (yes, that fwance) has elected a conservative, unapologeticly pro-American president?

Now appearing in Financial Times:

“Socialism has had its day; socialism has brought moral decline, high unemployment rates, weak, unstable economies, huge governments, regulation in just about every area of one’s life…”

At least there's a little light shing now. germany turning right didn't raise many eyebrows--but now France? Once capitalism's famous "virtuous circles' start turning a little freer, could be the sunshine disinfectant and a dose of self-prosperity will start curing the immigrant problem. At least there's a chance--and what solution did more socialism offer? A civil war?

When Ms. Royal suggested violence would follow the election of Sarkozy, did she have this in mind because he was a conservative or because he was a "jew"? Whatever the case, the French have repudiated her implied national humiliation.

John Lynch - old Right- the people who think democracy and elections are a bad idea, the old elite of nobility, landowners and the Church. The US doesn't have that kind of Right. The right here is actually classical liberals. They are only 'right' in relation to the modern left.

I think that is a misperception. There are plenty of elements in the American Right the Euros would instantly recognize as classic components of their Old Right.

The Open Borders, transnational Ruling Elites. Crony Capitalists and people of great wealth, business owners that trend conservative (though wealthy Jews tend to go to the Left as do wealthy celebrities, media employees that work in Jewish- dominated economic sectors). Add in the Religious Right and theocrats. All 3 components of the Old Right are continuing on in America...

***************Sweden and Denmark were recently named the most technologically advanced nations in the world (the US was 7th); they are also the most social democratic societies on earth.

Along with The Netherlands, another on the high tech list -three countries now reassessing the social welfare state, immigration & The Muslim Threat, and PC.

Sweden is now beginning it's young PM's "Thatcherizing" - the privatizing of state industries like Absolut. It is signalling a change in the dole and announcing it is getting tough on immigrant crime.

Was Ms. Royal warning of this when she cautioned that the election of Sarkozy would lead to violence?

“Algerian Prime Minister, Mr. Abdelaziz Belkhadem said a fierce war would break up if Sarkozy won the elections. The Prime Minister clearly accused Nicolas Sarkozy of planning to rehabilitate the “Secrete Army Organisation” on the ground of a document published by the French newspaper “Le Monde” last month. This document showed the great respect of Sarkozy for French settlers in Algeria.”Jews impose a “new governor” on France

"‘It is significant that he started his electoral campaign abroad by visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial. This obliges him to face the challenge of Iranian nuclear…’”“Sarkozy has repeatedly said that he doesn’t think Turkey should be a member of the EU.”"Goodbye Gaullism, France's Jews have put Sarkozy in power"

So, the anti-Sarkozy left is gonna play the race card, eh? The only thing they didn't pull on GWB--except for the Katrina one-off. I hope we--the western media--can find some way at long last to take the high road on the gutter politics.

Technically, Sarkozy may not even be Jewish (like I care). In terms of choice, he is an avowed Roman Catholic. However, to some, he is sufficiently "tainted" enough, by the possibility of carrying "one drop" of Jew-blood, to be anathema to decent folk - say, French “yutes” and, of course, our resident intellectual community.

When one reads the world press, today, with the Jew-baiting headlines and topic leads, is it really so remarkable that Jews are "thin skinned"? Despite our controlling all the organs and all the power of media, banking, agriculture, manufacturing, brokerage, Roto-Rooter, and the distribution of ersatz Girl Scout cookies, REALLY, honest to G-d, we’d just like to think of Mr. Sarkozy as that nice French gentleman, and leave it at that.

Allen, LOL--agree fully. I never could figure out how 10 or 12 million people worldwide could both control the world and be every tyrant's first target. Don't add up too good--and if it does, it's sort of a perverse compliment, ya gotta admit.

"Tremble, tyrants and traitorsThe shame of all good menTremble! Your parricidal schemesWill receive their just rewardAgainst you we are all soldiersIf they fall, our young herosFrance will bear new onesReady to join the fight against you

my exwife is from marseille. we're still on good terms, and although she supported lionel jospin of the socialists last election she has been pro-sarkozy for some time, as are most if not all of her vast array of family and friends.

one thing i never see mentioned is the absolute split between paris and the rest of france. (gee, maybe the anglo reporters only talk to parisians. could it be?)

there is a great difference in accent -- instantly recognizable -- between paris and the south of france. and in marseille the common people tend to loathe the "bobos" (trust-fund babies and limousine liberals) of paree.

I agree with the tenor of most of your comments here...but the French Revolution was much more than a Parisian affair...once it got rolling. Paris started the revolution, and dragged the rest of the country after it: after the king went to the block, the whole country was in ferment and virtual civil war, at least till the Girondians were good and put down.

The great tragedy of the French Revolution, IMHO, is that it could not be stopped in 1791, when the king conceded a constitution. The radicalism that produced the republic was one of history's great wrong turns -- and it discredited republicanism in France until the 1870's. So many Frenchmen welcomed Napoleon and a return to monarchial rule because the only republic they experienced was run by radical incompetents...spiritual ancestors of modern lefties.

What is absolutely amazing about the American Revolution is that it did not end in chaos or with a dictator. Neither England or France managed that. Or hardly anyone else. We really were fortunate that we got the leaders we did.

George Washington's biggest contribution is that he quit after two terms. It's pretty amazing if you think about it. He didn't have to go.

A democracy depends as much on certain unwritten conventions being observed as it does adherence to written rules. A turning point in the roman republic was when the gracchi took their land reform proposals to the tribal assembly, rather than the senate. While, legal, it was one of those things that 'simply wasn't done'. Doing things like the infinite lawsuits and recounts in FLorida, or warning against (inciting?) riots in France to gain a temporary advantage are very destructive.